Judicial (in)activism in Australia's secular commonwealth

his article addresses two aspects of Australia's soft secular government. The first aspect explains how, and asks why, judges have been inactive in helping to draw the contours of secular government in Australia. The principal reason is that much of the social regulation that provokes the interest of faith-based groups is the constitutional concern of the States, and no State Constitution claims to coordinate relations between church and state. Moreover, the electorate has twice refused to pass referenda, in 1944 and 1988, for extending a constitutional demand of secular governance to the States. However, this is not so for the Commonwealth. It falls under the restrictions of section 116 of the federal Constitution, which states: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion ('the establishment clause') or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion ('the free exercise clause'), and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. As will be explained, while methods of legal interpretation suggest that section 116's establishment clause could place mild demands of non-discrimination on the federal Parliament, judicial inactivity in policing such demands on the Commonwealth, paradoxically, has arguably been secured by judicial activism in the High Court. A second aspect of secular government addressed is the High Court's disposal of 'the separation of church and state' as a constitutional principle in Australia. The contrast, of course, is to the United States, where for sixty years 'separation' has been given uneven recognition as a rule of constitutional law, and has undoubtedly driven the development of hard forms of secular governance in that country. The centrepiece of American secular government is the 1971 decision in Lemon v Kurtzman, where the US Supreme Court held that valid legislation had to pass three tests, ie: First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion .. . finally, the statute must not foster 'an excessive government entanglement with religion. The third 'entanglement' prong of Lemon is the modern, less ambitious, form of the 'wall of separation', prohibiting too close an engagement between church and state. As this paper will demonstrate, 'entanglement's' destiny shows how unlikely it is that 'separation' can survive as a meaningful constitutional principle in the USA. And, it will also be argued that 'separation' has even poorer prospects for import to Australia.

The credentialing of counselling in Australia

Counselling is an unregulated activity in Australia. No statutory regulation currently exists. As a result, different counselling organizations are promoting different voluntary standards for the practice of counselling. This has led to a credentialing dilemma in which counsellors and the public are confronted with a number of counselling qualification choices. This dilemma poses a number of questions: Should counselling become more regulated in Australia? At what level should counselling be regulated? Should there be various levels of counsellor regulation? This article provides an overview of the credentialing dilemma facing counselling in Australia, compares and contrasts two main Australian accreditation efforts, and proposes cooperation as a way of navigating said dilemma. The implications for counselling as a profession are discussed along with suggestions for its development as a profession. This includes a discussion regarding the relative advantages and disadvantages of greater regulation of counselling as a professional activity in Australia. Specifically, what is and is not generally considered a profession is reviewed, different forms of credentialing are outlined, and general arguments for and against accreditation efforts are presented. The efforts of the Australian Counselling Association (ACA) and the Psychotherapy and Counselling Federation of Australia (PACFA) are compared and are shown to have common ground. Consequently, ways in which the main counselling organizations may best work in conjunction to promote counselling as a profession in Australia are proposed. These suggestions include good communication, collaboration, and the avoidance of turf wars. Specifically, that the ACA and PACFA collaborate on developing a combined independent registration list that is supported by both organizations or, minimally, that both organizations have mutual recognition on each other's register lists.

The risky business of doctoral management

Universities are under no less pressure to adopt risk management strategies than other public and private organisations. The risk management of doctoral education is a particularly important issue given that a doctorate is the highest academic qualification a university offers and stakes are high in terms of assuring its quality. However, intense risk management can interfere with the intellectual and pedagogical work which are essentially part of doctoral education. This paper seeks to understand how the culture of risk meets the culture of doctoral education and with what effect. The authors draw on sociological understandings of risk in the work of Anthony Giddens (2002) and Ulrich Beck (1992), the anthropological focus on liminality in the work of Mary Douglas (1990), and the psychological theorising of human error in the work of James Reason (1990). The paper concludes that risk consciousness brings its own risks—in particular, the potential transformation of a culture based on intellect into a culture based on compliance.